Network Rail confirmed plans for CP5 and aspirations for CP6

[76020]

It has nothing to do with them not wanting to do it. The scheme was in before GRIP0 development when it was announced by government. Therefore it is not ready to be taken forward and NR will not rush it when they that and everything else to do.

The 3rd rail equipment between Basingstoke and Southampton is supposed to be life expired, therefore something will have to be done, Network Rail are against any further extensions to the 3rd rail network so does this also apply to renewals in this case? My guess is that the southern electrification contractor Amey will start on the GOBLIN line next year, when they have finished this in 2017 they will move onto Reading-Basingstoke-Southampton.

 

[Class377/5]

Also interesting about South and West Yorkshire Cross Pennine lengthing - mention of provision for 8x 23m units through Huddersfield

Sorry... More, MML platform lengthening to include

- 12x Class 377 EMU's London to Corby
- 10x 26m Vehicles, and
- Electric Loco with 9x 23m carrigages and DVT

Kinda covering both bases on the long distance stock, looks like we have a logical home for the FCC 377's post Class 700 introduction, plus gives an insight into how the longer distance services could be strengthened in the interim before full electrification, i.e. Class 222 moved from the Corby services as 377's roll out

I'd read 377 as 'Electrostar type' 20m unit. When NR wrote that 387s were possibly still being referred to as 377/8. They still refer somewhere else to alterations for GW EMU services being based on 319s, yet other references quote 387s...

I think Class377/5 (the poster) has previously said most of the dual voltage 377s have homes to go to on the augmented WLL services, and other TSGN routes (non Thameslink).

The talk at the moment is 387's for Corby services especially as 10x 387s are booked to be released in time for Corby. Don't forget the 387 are Electrostars like swt_passenger points out.

The 377/2 and /5 currently on Thameslink duties are mostly required for the extended 'Southern' Milton Keynes service which is currently using 5 units but with 2tph 8 cars (vs today's 1tph 4 car) will require 20 units plus a couple of spared from a pool of 38 units giving 16 units 'free'. The idea is more 12 cars run around with the displaced 377's and knock on effect of releasing the 313s on the South Coast.

However be warned that we talking about some of the detail in the CP5 which isn't currently expected to be correct. Examples of 12 car 376, Thameslink to Dartford and Orpington (the latter is now proposed to be a peak 12 car Blackfriars to Orpington 2tph services using SE stock not class 700's) which have been ruled out. The detail is based on assumptions which we can't say will happen but could. 12 car 319's on Thames Valley services is a curious option.

 

[Class 170101]

So now just need to find those surplus Class 170s and 171s to actually run the longer trains!

and
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some more comments about this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26832350

Well maybe they will come from here

 

[Chrisgr31]

and
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well maybe they will come from here

Not by December 2016, nor by December 2026 I suspect!

 

[fgwrich]

The 3rd rail equipment between Basingstoke and Southampton is supposed to be life exipred, therefore something will have to be done, Network Rail are against any further extensions to the 3rd rail network so does this also apply to renewals in this case? My guess is that the southern electrification contractor Amey will start on the GOBLIN line next year, when they have finished this in 2017 they will move onto Reading-Basingstoke-Southampton.

I do hope though that with the Great Western & Thames Valley branches undergoing electrification, that Reading to Basingstoke isn't left out to what happens with the Electric Spine - including it in the Thames Valley Branches electrification would then remove the need for keeping our 150001/002 in Reading (could be cased to Devon & Cornwall or somewhere else or even preservation), and allow the Paddington to Reading service to be extended to Basingstoke - I think this came up with the Heathrow Curve plan.

Electrification (25kv AC overhead) of the route between Reading (Southcote Junction)
and Basingstoke
This provides electrification of the route from Southcote Junction near Reading to
Basingstoke enabling more efficient operation of passenger services on the route through
electric traction. It is also an important step towards enabling ‘Cross Country’ passenger
services and freight operating electrically in the future.

Which is then followed by:

DfT have indicated that the initial EMU operations will utilise class 319 units operating up to
12-car in length over the following core route sections:
Core routes
 Paddington to Oxford.
 Slough to Windsor and Eton Central.
 Maidenhead to Marlow.
 Twyford to Henley.
 Reading to Newbury.
 Reading to Basingstoke.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I do hope though that with the Great Western & Thames Valley branches undergoing electrification, that Reading to Basingstoke isn't left out to what happens with the Electric Spine

The Southcote Jn-Basingstoke wiring is one of the Electric Spine sections that has been "prioritised", but there are no milestones in the CP5 plan yet.
Leamington Spa-Coventry is another section in a similar state.

 

[swt_passenger]

I do hope though that with the Great Western & Thames Valley branches undergoing electrification, that Reading to Basingstoke isn't left out to what happens with the Electric Spine - including it in the Thames Valley Branches electrification would then remove the need for keeping our 150001/002 in Reading ...

Electrification plans don't remove DMUs from Reading completely, because there is still the North Downs line to consider. I think 150001/2 are more likely to be transferred somewhere else (for fleet commonality at Reading) as a result of less DMUs being needed there well before wiring starts.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 3rd rail equipment between Basingstoke and Southampton is supposed to be life expired, therefore something will have to be done, Network Rail are against any further extensions to the 3rd rail network so does this also apply to renewals in this case?

Like for like renewals are permitted, as are short extensions. In fact new DC equipment has recently gone in , and is still going in, on various routes to strengthen power supplies to allow train lengthening projects to happen.

Although much of the SWML equipment is life expired, there is something like a 30% overlay of new equipment fitted only within the last ten years or so, and that is likely to go into the maintenance and renewals stockpile for other DC routes.

 

[northwichcat]

Also interesting about South and West Yorkshire Cross Pennine lengthing - mention of provision for 8x 23m units through Huddersfield

They seem to have removed references as to where it's pre-1991 23m carriages e.g. 156s and 158s and longer post-1991 23m carriages e.g. Turbostars and 185s. Originally it suggested quite a few lines in the North would be getting Turbostars in up to 4 car formation but now that reference has gone.

 

[76020]

Electrification plans don't remove DMUs from Reading completely, because there is still the North Downs line to consider. I think 150001/2 are more likely to be transferred somewhere else (for fleet commonality at Reading) as a result of less DMUs being needed there well before wiring starts.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Like for like renewals are permitted, as are short extensions. In fact new DC equipment has recently gone in , and is still going in, on various routes to strengthen power supplies to allow train lengthening projects to happen.

Although much of the SWML equipment is life expired, there is something like a 30% overlay of new equipment fitted only within the last ten years or so, and that is likely to go into the maintenance and renewals stockpile for other DC routes.

The 3rd Rail to 25KV conversion Basingstoke to Southampton will be done at some point, perhaps towards the end of CP5 but there is no dates given as yet.

This was the original announcement by the then secretary of state in 2012 for the Electric Spine:-

The Secretary of State wishes the industry to develop and deliver within CP5 the major rail electrification and capability enhancement referred to as the ‘Electric Spine’, in order to increase regional and national connectivity and support economic development by creating a high-capability 25kV electrified passenger and freight route from the South Coast via Oxford and the Midlands to South Yorkshire.

The routes to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine are: 
Southampton Port – Basingstoke (conversion from 750 dc); 
Basingstoke – Reading;
Oxford – Leamington – Coventry;
Coventry – Nuneaton;
Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford (East West Rail core route);
Bedford – Nottingham and Derby, and Derby – Sheffield
(Midland Main Line); and Kettering – Corby

The southern end of the Electric Spine entails the conversion of a section of the existing Southern ‘third rail’ (750V DC) electrification system to the more modern and capable ‘overhead’ (25kV AC) system to upgrade its capability. The Secretary of State also wishes the industry to develop a longer-term proposition and business case for the systematic upgrade from DC to AC of the whole Southern network, for consideration for future control periods. As part of this work the industry will wish to treat the conversion work required for Southampton to Basingstoke as a pilot scheme for such a potential modernisation programme, and review plans for renewing or upgrading the DC network to avoid the risk of nugatory expenditure.

On another issue, after years of no interest in any electrification, everybody seems to want it now and done within short timescales, Network Rail can only do so much, we have already seen some projects slip back, except a few more in the next 5 years!

 

[Haydn1971]

The talk at the moment is 387's for Corby services especially as 10x 387s are booked to be released in time for Corby. Don't forget the 387 are Electrostars like swt_passenger points out.

Just noticed that the Wikipedia article explicitly refers to Class 387's running a half hourly service to Corby from 2017 - refers to an article in Rail and cites Steve Broadbent. It's currently 75 minutes to Corby from St Pancras, which suggests with some journey time savings you could run a return service with five trains, i.e. 10x 387's running as doubled up units
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They seem to have removed references as to where it's pre-1991 23m carriages e.g. 156s and 158s and longer post-1991 23m carriages e.g. Turbostars and 185s. Originally it suggested quite a few lines in the North would be getting Turbostars in up to 4 car formation but now that reference has gone.

That seems a reasonable thing to do, as the national programme of electrification, roll out of new stock down south, national franchise dates, new franchise routes/regions, introduction of SET specifically the knock on cascades of voyagers, meridians, corodias etc, platform lengthening, refurbs, plus all sorts of other things make firm commitments of a particular type of commuter DMU/EMU a logistical nightmare.

In terms of customers, a 23m carriage is a 23m carriage and will carry up to 150 or so people at crush, which helps determine what length units go where as the passenger numbers between stations and growth trends should be relatively well known to operators.

 

[northwichcat]

That seems a reasonable thing to do, as the national programme of electrification, roll out of new stock down south, national franchise dates, new franchise routes/regions, introduction of SET specifically the knock on cascades of voyagers, meridians, corodias etc, platform lengthening, refurbs, plus all sorts of other things make firm commitments of a particular type of commuter DMU/EMU a logistical nightmare.

In terms of customers, a 23m carriage is a 23m carriage and will carry up to 150 or so people at crush, which helps determine what length units go where as the passenger numbers between stations and growth trends should be relatively well known to operators.

Network Rail need to know what type of rolling stock is going to be used to allow for platform lengthening. A pair of 3 car 158s is over 4m shorter than a pair of 185s - that makes the difference between a platform needing lengthening and it not needing lengthening.

One of the lines that was set to get platforms long enough for 4 car Turbostars was my own local line the Mid-Cheshire line. Given most platforms on the line are already long enough for 4 car Turbostars while others would have issues with 4 car 156s, there are no plans to electrify the line in the next 10 years and extra capacity is needed now, would extending the shorter platforms to allow 4 car Turbostars not make sense regardless of whether or not the line will get Turbostars? If you just allow for 4 car 156s then you may need more platform extension work in the future, possibly before 23m Sprinters get withdrawn.

 

[Haydn1971]

It's a headache for sure, discussions I've been involved in re platform lengthening has always been vague - my feeling as a civil engineer is that platform lengthening will be reactive on the basis of what is known at the time of the lengthening work. It may be that some platforms could be lengthened easily to accommodate 8x 24m so could get done straight off if there's a likelihood of longer term deployment of 8 car units, whereas others prove difficult to extend beyond an immediate deployment of six car units so may well get lengthened twice should the platforms go from 4x now to 6x "now" to 8x a few years down the line... Then of course some (non-ECML) stations in the Yorkshire Region may also need to accommodate 5x 26m SET's, that are somewhere in between !

I suspect lots of work for the consultants, which is only good news for the firm I work for

 

[Darren R]

Slightly off-topic here (sorry), but the subject of platform-lengthening and the complications involved therein crops up frequently. It has just occurred to me to wonder why so many of our station platforms are only just long enough for the trains that call there now. I don't mean stations which have lengthy platforms already that still need extending (such as in the London area.) The stations on my local line are barely long enough for a four-car train and need lengthening in order to accomodate them, and yet not-so-many years ago the platforms were long enough to easily accomodate much longer trains and have been shortened over the years. This is quite common (at least here in Northern-Land.)

Is there a reason why - or is it just to save money? It seems rather short-sighted: I can't believe that having a six-car long platform is any more costly to operate and maintain than a three-car platform.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Also interesting about South and West Yorkshire Cross Pennine lengthing - mention of provision for 8x 23m units through Huddersfield
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry... More, MML platform lengthening to include

- 12x Class 377 EMU's London to Corby
- 10x 26m Vehicles, and
- Electric Loco with 9x 23m carrigages and DVT

Kinda covering both bases on the long distance stock, looks like we have a logical home for the FCC 377's post Class 700 introduction, plus gives an insight into how the longer distance services could be strengthened in the interim before full electrification, i.e. Class 222 moved from the Corby services as 377's roll out

Dream on, it's not going to happen. The TOC would not be that stupid.

 

[fgwrich]

Dream on, it's not going to happen. The TOC would not be that stupid.

Unless it's how you count those Class 91 (+82 series DVT) Sets on the ECML - Which Porterbrook are still pushing by the looks of it for the 91s to be replaced with these TRAXX units. So given the talk of the former 'IC 225 sets' transferring to the MML after electrification, I would say NR are including that in the list of potential options.

 

[Haydn1971]

Dream on, it's not going to happen. The TOC would not be that stupid.

Not my words Richard - directly from the Network Rail document. I read the line at the 225 sets, rather than anything new.

Based on recent event, the TOC won't have much sway in what they run.

 

[59CosG95]

Then of course some (non-ECML) stations in the Yorkshire Region may also need to accommodate 5x 26m SET's, that are somewhere in between !

Presumably that's going to be for the new (Alliance) GNER, who want to run services to Ilkley.

 

[Haydn1971]

Presumably that's going to be for the new (Alliance) GNER, who want to run services to Ilkley.

Not just that, but with the roll out of SET I'm expecting to see more diverse services - It's likely that Hull Trains gets rolled into ECML franchise, you could see Middlesborough, Huddersfield and Skipton on a few extensions each day.

There's also been a long term aspiration to restart London services from Barnsley, it's not a big leap to include Wakefield Kirkgate and Meadowhall on that for an extension from Sheffield, which could help remove stationary IC units from a ever more congested Sheffield Station, but that's assuming SET also gets deployed to MML.

 

[northwichcat]

Slightly off-topic here (sorry), but the subject of platform-lengthening and the complications involved therein crops up frequently. It has just occurred to me to wonder why so many of our station platforms are only just long enough for the trains that call there now. I don't mean stations which have lengthy platforms already that still need extending (such as in the London area.) The stations on my local line are barely long enough for a four-car train and need lengthening in order to accomodate them, and yet not-so-many years ago the platforms were long enough to easily accomodate much longer trains and have been shortened over the years. This is quite common (at least here in Northern-Land.)

Is there a reason why - or is it just to save money? It seems rather short-sighted: I can't believe that having a six-car long platform is any more costly to operate and maintain than a three-car platform.

On the Mid-Cheshire line Knutsford and Northwich can take 6 cars, Altrincham and Navigation Road can take 8 cars, any of the village stations should be able to take a 4 car 150 but some are a bit short for a 4 car 156 / 4 car 158. Maybe it's down to less express trains operating now than when the stations were built?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Not my words Richard - directly from the Network Rail document. I read the line at the 225 sets, rather than anything new.

Based on recent event, the TOC won't have much sway in what they run.

Richard? It’s Richmond! Running 225's on the MML would wreck all the hard work that has been put into the line. They would be absolutely crazy to do this, especially the fact that we would no longer be able to split trains. Not to mention poor acceleration against EMU's and of course the high cost of maintenance. Given that there are only four platforms at St Pancras this will inevitably result in a reduced service.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that there are only four platforms at St Pancras this will inevitably result in a reduced service.

If we can't run 6 long distance trains a hour from 4 platforms, regardless of stock, we may as well pack up now.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If we can't run 6 long distance trains a hour from 4 platforms, regardless of stock, we may as well pack up now.

Well from my experience I'm not sure we can. Hence the reason why trains to Derby and Nottingham depart from the same platform within a few minutes of each other. That will simply not happen with 9 coach services. Let’s get packing, where are we off to?

 

[Bald Rick]

Well from my experience I'm not sure we can. Hence the reason why trains to Derby and Nottingham depart from the same platform within a few minutes of each other. That will simply not happen with 9 coach services. Let’s get packing, where are we off to?

Milton Keynes for a discussion with NR timetablers.

It can be done, it just isn't today for a variety of reasons.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Milton Keynes for a discussion with NR timetablers.

It can be done, it just isn't today for a variety of reasons.

So we have so much confusion at St Pancras for nothing? I would be interested to know what the reasons are and how they can be over come by using full length 225 stock?

 

[cle]

I agree the use of St Pancras MML is pitiful. Services which in reality only serve as far as Sheffield could be run using Javelins or similar. It's a 2 hour max journey now, so not hugely long distance. A drinks trolley would be fine too - with first class having a better provision obviously. People can buy things at stations.

These EMUs could easily handle 12tph with a quick clean and bin empty after each service (even if the line can't handle it!) - perhaps some peak extras to Bedford? I think Corby may be doubled too.

 

[The Planner]

If we can't run 6 long distance trains a hour from 4 platforms, regardless of stock, we may as well pack up now.

+1, its getting desperate if we can't.....

 

[Tomnick]

Even at that, there are several moves per day to Kentish Town or Cricklewood and back (in addition to those that go to Cricklewood to stable during the day), seemingly just to clear a platform for a bit. I appreciate the difficulties in achieving consistently short turnarounds with the constraints imposed by trying to diagram three different types of train (HST, 222-5, 222-7) appropriately, but 1tph per platform (plus one sharing a platform each hour) seems a bit on the low side!

 

[ic250]

Services which in reality only serve as far as Sheffield could be run using Javelins or similar.

The only problem with that is that (because of Schengen?) the tracks leading into St. Pancras aren't linked – there's no access from the MML side to HS1, which might preclude using the Javelins.

As much as I like St. Pancras, the sacrificing of platform space for shopping does seem like a particularly short-sighted idea. I'd say its a couple of years before they extend more platforms back into the Barlow shed to increase inter-city capacity on the MML.

 

[Bald Rick]

The only problem with that is that (because of Schengen?) the tracks leading into St. Pancras aren't linked – there's no access from the MML side to HS1, which might preclude using the Javelins.

As much as I like St. Pancras, the sacrificing of platform space for shopping does seem like a particularly short-sighted idea. I'd say its a couple of years before they extend more platforms back into the Barlow shed to increase inter-city capacity on the MML.

Eh? All that would do is make longer platforms, not more.

There has been a study looking at building another platform to the west of 1-4, but the cost is astronomical.

Besides the tracks are linked. You can get from the MML to all the international platforms but not the domestic high speed platforms. Those who suggest that the Derby trains should be subjected to immigration controls should consider themselves on the thinnest of the ice.

Although they are rather different railways, Fenchurch St manages 21 tph off 4 platforms....

 

[RichmondCommu]

Even at that, there are several moves per day to Kentish Town or Cricklewood and back (in addition to those that go to Cricklewood to stable during the day), seemingly just to clear a platform for a bit. I appreciate the difficulties in achieving consistently short turnarounds with the constraints imposed by trying to diagram three different types of train (HST, 222-5, 222-7) appropriately, but 1tph per platform (plus one sharing a platform each hour) seems a bit on the low side!

This is one of my issues with running 225's on the MML. If we are struggling at the moment even with platform sharing surely things are only going to get worse? The current situation has existed at St Pancras for a few years now so one suspects that things are unlikely to ever improve.